Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
First let's deal with your elementary grammar error in Hebrew. Had the verse wanted to state "kings of Arabs" or "kings of the Arabs", it would have stated the word "Arabs" in plural - "Aravim". But it doesn't, so your point is what exactly? That you can drum up inexactitudes to suite your fancy? I don't think so.
|
As you should know, the Bible very often refers to a 'nation' by using it's patronimical name, thus 'Aram' can mean Aram as a man name, a land OR the people that dwell in the land, lets call them the *Arams. Same exactly applies to Araw. Also remember that modern Hebrew has gone a long way from it's biblical form and you find forms that cannot be met in today's everyday language. This makes it a bit more complicated issue to be so asured about proper forms.
Would you say nowadays "Vayyar Elohim ki tov"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
So they did or didn't know? Make up your mind.
|
Oh, come on and don't try to be offensive. That doesn't help a bit in any discussion. And having an area on ones map doesn't mean that the area is explored. Have you read any book of a Roman historian describing so called Arabia? You should, you'd be sure none of them was there, when he wrote about streets full of gold, precious stones etc. What Romans did know was existance of land somewhere there. Even the name they called it was unproper (Arabia Felix is a flawed translation of "Yaman", similar to flawed translation regarding Moses face 'with horns' ('bekarnaim', if I remember correctly)).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Also, not conquering the entire penninsula does not mean that refugee migrations did not head beyond the bounds of these major conquering empires. In fact the opposite is most logical.
|
The really logical is to flee from the desert to find a fruitfull land to live, and that is what had been happening there for thousands of years. At least historians say that, you know. Tribes and peoples who lived in the central parts of the Peninsula constantly migrated to North (Syrian Desert, Mesopotamia) and West (Egypt), thus causing many problems and 'unrests'. You can find it it ANY book about ancient history. Have a look at Hitti's "History of the Arabs", Khourani's "History of the Arabs", Bright's "History of Israel", Moscati's "Culture of the Ancient Semitic nations" and so on, and so on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
The term 'Arabia' referred usually to only one part, the closest one, Petrea. No thinking man would like to invade the rest of the Pensinsula, where you could find only stones. So "malchei erev" can refer to kings of Petrea, some two or thre more kingdoms, skipping 90% of the rest of Pensisula. The very Pensisula, we should say.
|
How does any of this prove your original point, which - to remind you - was: "In these times there was not such a name as "Arab""? And again, I mentioned that I have no disagreement that the penninsula consisted of multiple kingdoms. In fact, that's what the verses I quoted state. |
So I should correct myself. The point is: in these times there was no such a name as 'Arab' to name all the nations/tribes/peoples/whatever that lived in the whole Arabic Peninsula. It's the dawn of Islam that brought the idea of 'one Arabic nation'. Earlier they used to call themselves with a different names, for example "beduins", and almost every city/kingdom/large tribe had it's own identity, feel of being different from the other, who surrounded it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
There is an arguement among the Semitologists, what do " 'ivri", " 'aravi" mean in the Bible. As you know, there are numerous theories, none of them is sure.
|
I have no problem with either of them, with much less doubt than you. |
And, you know, I'd envy you the self-asureness in the matter, if not the fact, that I prefer to stick on knowledge that comes from scientifical research than on beliefs. In modern Hebrew the meaning is simple: 'Aravi' stands for 'Arab', 'Ivri' for 'Hebrew' and that's as simple, as it could ever be. But the origin of these words is not such simple, thus we have very many efforts to find it's original, true meaning in the Bible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.
|
The law you refer to comes from much, much later times (when the Talmud was written, about V-VI century Christian era). |
No, it is Halacha le'Moshe mi'Sinai, handed down from G-d to Moses at Sinai as the Torah's Oral Law. I suggest you try taking your revisionism elsewhere. |
As I stated above, I'll stick on the facts. The fact is that Talmud was written some one and a half thousands years ago, and the issues we try to discuss happened like four thousands years ago. We have no further evidence of existance of these laws before, not mentioning the existance of Moses etc. Thus for me Talmud cannot be any source of information about ethnical origin of the Jews. It's not the matter of revisionism, it's a matter of being religious and believing in what Bible says, and being a sceptic. I'm the latter one, and as I said there is not a base we could share in this discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
I refer to scientifical research, supported by linguistic, archeological, genetical and other research. You refer to the Bible text. No common base for us, sorry.
|
You haven't referenced anything scientific so far. State your sources but this is becoming tedious. |
I've named a few books above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
I still don't see how.
|
If you are ok with the phrase as it is, enjoy it! Not my problem, really. It's always good to have a smile everytime I spot it in someone's sig!
